With all the stream diffeculties, network etc and poor video quality and reliability concerns...I am begining to think the fact that android support caused me not to purchase yet might have been a good thing.

Perhaps my current solution of kmttg and then just copy the vid to my android phone works well enough to not purchase the stream at all.....

__________________
Current : Roamio Base with 2TB drive and 2 Premieres and a mini. OTA. kmttg, pyTivo, running with a 78TB Synology 1511 NAS....serving up the world.

Setup help for pytivo under windows: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am kind of glad that the Stream did not support Android. Only because it forced me to purchase a SlingBox 350. Which overall has been better than my old HavaHD. Although I still have both connected using the pass through option on the SlingBox.

The longer it takes to get Android support the less likely I will get the stream. SInce I plan on getting their six tuner box, if it's released next year, and it should have the stream capabilites built in.

As a long-time Tivo customer, it's not simply disappointing that the Apple first, Android later development strategy is so outdated. For me, it throws into doubt their long-term strategic vision and ability to execute that vision, gain customers, thrive/grow, and continue to innovate. Do I want to continue to invest in products from a company with that strategy? I've invested thousands so far, but do I want to keep doing so? That is the big question.

The one piece that I'm clinging to is that maybe the development cycle for Stream was such a long process (2009-ish?) that the iPhone was the only game in town so they thought it was a waste to develop for another platform (Blackberry being impossible back then despite market share). I hope that is the reason there is still no Android support for Stream.

I think it's more a fact of limited resources. I've personally dealt with their engineering department before and I know that they work on a budget and have to delegate resources to each specific project. It's likely they only had the budget to develop the app for one or the other at launch and chose iOS because it was the most likely to result in a successful launch. As was mentioned earlier in the thread the metrics clearly show that iOS users are typically wealthier, use their devices more often and spend more money on apps/accessories. If I was developing something like this and only had the budget to target either iOS or Android I'd have chosen iOS as well. It just makes the most sense from a business perspective.

Also you need to remember that the target for this is NOT smart phones but tablets. It works on the iPhone, but their target was clearly the iPad. And when you look at the data for tablets the numbers are even more skewed in Apple's favor.

As a long-time Tivo customer, it's not simply disappointing that the Apple first, Android later development strategy is so outdated.

How is it outdated? APPLE DOES NOT HAVE THE FRAGMENTATION. You would have to support a bunch of different versions of Android, etc. or have a MUCH smaller target market if you support only the latest Android. (You can STILL buy devices running old versions of Android that cannot update to newer Androids.)

I doubt the lack of android support is a long-term issue, much less part of some long-term strategy. The Stream has been out for all of 2 months and it sounds like the issue will be resolved in months.

I'm not going to take the time to try and convince you that apple users are not "sheeple". It's completely pointless.

Why would you need to convince me? I never used the term, nor am I personally entirely convinced the term applies more to Ipad users than Android users. Certainly some fraction of both qualify.

It is never pointless to make a point, and to do so, regardless of the point, requires supplying facts and solid theories to backup one's point. Failing to do so is little more than bleating, "Is not!".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ort

When people say "sheeple" or refer to others as "sheep" what they really mean is "someone who made a different decision than they did".

That is obvious. It also, however, suggests that a majority of people who made the decision merely did so primarily because the decision is a popular one. I'm afraid, whatever the subject, you are going to be hard pressed to prove anything is otherwise the case in the same breath as declaring a platform to be popular. Whether you like it or not, for any popular item, some fairly large fraction of the people who support it do so primarily because it is popular.

In a university study a couple of decades ago, the researchers were able to identify two quite distinct groupings of humans into which virtually all people fell. One group was labeled "sheep" and the other "goats". As the name implied, sheep tended to often be followers, although almost all leaders were also sheep. In effect, sheep were comfortable in a group and generally sought out the group and its activities, whether as leaders or followers. Their thinking very fundamentally is influenced by what is deemed popular. The sheep group makes up the vast majority of humans.

Goats, OTOH, had almost no desire at all to either lead or follow (and often not even an ability to do so). They are not comfortable with arbitrary rules or popular trends, and they question authority out of hand. They are independent thinkers and often care very little what others think of them. If they choose to partake of a popular item, the popularity is purely incidental to the nature of the item. Goats are in a decided minority, compared to sheep, although not exceedingly rare.

WRT this discussion, how many goats do you think use Ipads? Some actual numbers would be nice. This goat surely does not, but then he doesn't use an Android tablet, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ort

It's a stupid phrase, regardless of who it is directed at. I've seen it used to describe all sorts of different people.

I don't know how stupid it is. It is certainly often accurate. If it weren't, no one would ever have bought a pet rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ort

It runs on the assumption that everyone who isn't YOU, and came to the exact same conclusions as YOU, is a mindless moron who can't think rationally.

I never used the term, so I surely cannot fathom why you are putting such emphasis on the word "you". I certainly have come across an unconscionable number of mindless morons, but being one does not prevent them from sometimes hitting on the right answer. Sometimes the popular answer is the best one. The two are not fundamentally related, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ort

It's just a lazy, ugly phrase, and it comes from a bad place of the human psyche. It's divisive and belittling.

Divisive? I would rather not be associated in any way with mindless morons, thank you very much, so anything which in any way separates them from the rest of us is a good thing. Failing to be divisive is certainly not a good thing. What's more, who on Earth says mindless morons should not belittled? Stupidity causes far, far more pain, suffering, and death than all hatred and all wars put together.

While it may have little negative effects on others when corporations successfully turn people into sheeple, there are significant negative effects when tyrants like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden do.

Oh, bull. The negative effects of sheeple-izing by giant corporations is far wider reaching and far more detrimental than Hitler or OBL in their wildest dreams. Hitler killed perhaps 6 million people. OBL perhaps a few thousand. It's possible corporations have killed many, many millions of people, but far worse than killing, corporations leech away freedom far more effectively than any government ever has or can, and they do it on the scale of hundreds of millions of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atmuscarella

Then of course calling people sheeple may just be an attempt to turn them into sheeple of another stripe. Samsung's recent anti-apple commercial is doing that and the tactic is often used in politics.

Yeah, that's the real problem. Many people seek not to eliminate groups, but to recruit from another group into their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atmuscarella

On the topic of if Apple's customers are sheeple or not, I am fairly certain most are not. However if someone isn't making anything from camping out in front of an apple store just to replace the iphone they camped out to get last year with a new one, I am guessing they are.

My question is, "How many people really have any actual need for a tablet in the first place?" I surely don't.

My question is, "How many people really have any actual need for a tablet in the first place?" I surely don't.

I use my iPad constantly. I use it to play social games with my firends/family, I use it to surf the web on the couch (I'm doing that right now), I use it to read magazines in the bathroom and I use it to watch TiVo in bed. I typically run through 50-70% of the battery every single day. So while I may not "need" a tablet I certainly get a lot of use out of mine.

My question is, "How many people really have any actual need for a tablet in the first place?" I surely don't.

I have no need for a laptop or desktop really. 10 years ago i almost bought into the smart display stuff, but it was missing something and a too pricey for an RDP thin client monitor . All i wanted to do was sit on my couch rather than at a desk. and the TV, with a MCE wireless keyboard turned out to be just a pain... for anything other than MCE

I can't wait for stream for android. I was about to pick up the stream since we have an iphone and ipad in the house, but I like my ICS and JB more at the moment.

How is it outdated? APPLE DOES NOT HAVE THE FRAGMENTATION. You would have to support a bunch of different versions of Android, etc. or have a MUCH smaller target market if you support only the latest Android. (You can STILL buy devices running old versions of Android that cannot update to newer Androids.)

What is your point? Apple has a different model than Android. They release 1 new device version each year (typically), and they do not allow others to produce devices with the same software. They charge a premium for their devices and may consumers don't mind paying. This extreme control means they can dictate almost every aspect of the experience.

Android is different. Because there is a wide variety of hardware and vendors producing devices, there are many older software phones still around. However, that is changing. It just takes time for the old to be replaced with the new.

So there may need to be two different versions of the Tivo app to support in the mean time. How is that any different from the usual experience for software development? Most companies must produce a working product that works with Windows 7 and XP or at least maintain some compatibility between versions.

Fragmentation isn't stopping any major app developer from providing working apps for gingerbread and newer which represents the majority of Android phones. Sure it may be easier to develop for Apple devices because of their hyper control ecosystem, but since when is doing something because it is easier the better choice?

I use my iPad constantly. I use it to play social games with my firends/family, I use it to surf the web on the couch (I'm doing that right now), I use it to read magazines in the bathroom and I use it to watch TiVo in bed. I typically run through 50-70% of the battery every single day. So while I may not "need" a tablet I certainly get a lot of use out of mine.

No doubt, but as you say, there is a difference between "use"and "need". I don't play games of any sort, and I do not surf the web, at least not in any way that would be reasonable with a tablet. I have an e-reader that does a better job for reading, and its battery lasts about two months, not just one day.

I avoid staring at a computer screen whenever possible, which gets me down to about 12 - 14 hours a day, on average. When I do stare at a computer screen, 9" is nowhere nearly acceptable for virtually anything I do. Even 21" is quite too small to be acceptable. In a minute , I am going in to practice on an RC flight simulator on a 150" screen. It's a little undersized for the application. A full sized keyboard with a separate numeric keypad is absolutely essential, and a mouse or other pointing device with fewer than 6 buttons is useless.

The bottom line, I suppose, is I do not generally speaking use a PC for recreation. I rely on other devices for that. More importantly, I do not *WANT* my PCs to be portable. It's nothing but an excuse for work to infringe even more heavily on my free time. When I am at a restaurant, or the park, or at the houses of friends or family, work just has to wait. If I had a mobile device with me , they could button-hook me into doing work remotely.

A little over 5 years ago, there was almost a revolt among my engineering colleagues because the IT department did not want to spend the money for over two hundred 24" monitors. A few of us went so far as to threaten to quit. Some of the rest of us, like me, just bit the bullet and bought our own, bringing them to work. Finally, the VP of engineering had enough of it. He got some backing from the senior team and read the IT folks the riot act, and they finally bought the monitors. Many of us are still using our own monitors, along with the ones they bought us. Most of us have dual 24" or larger monitors, and some of us have three. It's not overkill, and it does greatly enhance our performance and reduce stress.

What is your point? Apple has a different model than Android. They release 1 new device version each year (typically), and they do not allow others to produce devices with the same software. They charge a premium for their devices and may consumers don't mind paying. This extreme control means they can dictate almost every aspect of the experience.

Android is different. Because there is a wide variety of hardware and vendors producing devices, there are many older software phones still around. However, that is changing. It just takes time for the old to be replaced with the new.

So there may need to be two different versions of the Tivo app to support in the mean time. How is that any different from the usual experience for software development? Most companies must produce a working product that works with Windows 7 and XP or at least maintain some compatibility between versions.

Fragmentation isn't stopping any major app developer from providing working apps for gingerbread and newer which represents the majority of Android phones. Sure it may be easier to develop for Apple devices because of their hyper control ecosystem, but since when is doing something because it is easier the better choice?

You're just not getting it.

Making the iOS version first cost them less money, took less time and made the product available to more of their customers sooner. There is no rational reason to code the Android version first.

Maybe they should have waited 6 more months to release it with support for both platforms, but who does that actually benefit? It doesn't actually result in you getting to use the product sooner.

Making the iOS version first cost them less money, took less time and made the product available to more of their customers sooner. There is no rational reason to code the Android version first.

Maybe they should have waited 6 more months to release it with support for both platforms, but who does that actually benefit? It doesn't actually result in you getting to use the product sooner.

I have no idea about how much time any of this should take so if someone does I would be interested in their thoughts.

In any event I find it pretty unthinkable that it should take 6 months to develop an android app to do the same thing that an ios app does once you have developed the ios app. Does the nature of android app development limit the number of individual developers working on the project? or can you simply add more developers to speed up the process? Anyone have some fact based thoughts on this?

It seems to me the longer TiVo waits to get android support the less likely they are to sell more devices because of it.

On a someone separate note if they do get an android app up and working is there any reason will will not be able to use it on a Google TV device?

I have no idea about how much time any of this should take so if someone does I would be interested in their thoughts.

In any event I find it pretty unthinkable that it should take 6 months to develop an android app to do the same thing that an ios app does once you have developed the ios app. Does the nature of android app development limit the number of individual developers working on the project? or can you simply add more developers to speed up the process? Anyone have some fact based thoughts on this?

The two are mutually exclusive. iOS apps are written in a language called Objective C using an iOS specific SDK that is exclusive to Mac OSX. Android apps are written in Java/C++ with an Android specific SDK that's available for all platforms. Very little, if any, code can be shared between them.

As for putting more developers on the project to speed it up... for a project like this that's probably not practical. It's likely just one guy doing this. The only way to effectively split a project amongst multiple developers is to give them each specific features or section of the application to work on. The TiVo app is relatively simple, so there aren't many sections, plu the main portion of the app is already functional. The only section that needs to be worked on is the Stream support and video playback. They might be able to use two guys, one for the backend communication stuff and another working on the UI portion, but adding more then that probably would hinder the project more then help it.

As I said above the delay in Android support is more likely a budgetary issue. It's also possible that these apps are developed by 3rd party contractors (TiVo Desktop is) and they have to wait for the contractor to schedule them in. In any case I'm sure they're doing what they can to make it available as quickly as possible. It's not like they are just telling the developer "take your time, we don't need Android support".

Quote:

Originally Posted by atmuscarella

It seems to me the longer TiVo waits to get android support the less likely they are to sell more devices because of it.

Why? Is there some competing product that all the Android users are going to go with instead? Nope. They're just as likely to sell Streams to Android users right now as they will be 3 months from now. In fact, if anything, there might be slightly more demand after the holidays since a lot of people will get Android devices as gifts.

You're confusing you're own desire for the product with the actual market.

...
You're confusing you're own desire for the product with the actual market.

Dan

Thanks for your information on how things work.

I actually have little desire for the stream at this point, I might have purchased it as an impulse buy when it first came out if it supported android but it really doesn't fit into my current video consumption patterns (I don't watch video on my android tablet).

My thoughts on reduced over all demand the longer android support isn't provided is based the fact that many people believe the next TiVo DVR (Series 5?) will have stream support built in and that it is coming in 2013, which may reduce some demand the longer time goes on without android support. I agree as more people buy/get tablets that are supported by the stream demand should still go up.

That's some pretty broad speculation. Other then a casual mention during a conference call that a "future" TiVo model would have the Stream capabilities built in, and some speculation on this forum that the Pace XG1 would turn into a retail product, there is no indication that a Series 5 will be released next year. If anyone is seriously holding off buying a Stream because they think that's going to happen then they could be waiting for a long time. Then again I could see people holding off until after CES just to see if TiVo has anything new planned. Although even then a 6 tuner TiVo with Stream capabilities built in is likely to be really expensive, so even if the rumors are true most people would probably still be better off sticking with their current TiVos and buying the Stream as an add-on.

If I owned Stream I'd rarely use it to stream to my 3rd generation iPad. If the Tivo Stream had Android support I'd be more likely to stream from my Galaxy Nexus smart phone than a tablet because I have my phone on me most of the time. If I'm outside enjoying the weather and want to watch a local news highlight, I'd simply pull out my Android phone and stream the first 5 minutes of the local news. I don't see me using it to watch an hour long program, but I would use it to watch a half hour show. Maybe I am the outlier in how I would use it.